Opinion: India’s Diversity Demands a 30-Year Korea Strategy, Not a Quick Export Push

America’s literary giant Mark Twain (1835-1910) wrote after traveling in India:
“India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great-grandmother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.”

Once described as a storehouse of civilization, India is now emerging as a new growth axis reshaping the global economic order. It is the world’s most populous country, a young economic giant and, at the same time, one of the most complex civilizations.

South Korea’s view of India often remains narrow: a source of low-cost labor, a vast consumer market, or a production base to replace China. But India is not that simple. It is closer to a continent, a civilization and a world. Strategy toward India should not be a short-term export plan, but a long-range approach looking 30 years ahead.

If the Lee Jae-myung administration is truly preparing for an Asian era, it should train large numbers of Hindi specialists as a national strategic priority, not just English experts. Beyond Chinese and Japanese, South Korea needs a generation that can work in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi. Diplomacy begins with language, and trust begins with cultural understanding. The future with India will not be opened by a translation device. It will be opened by people.

The Roman philosopher Seneca said:
“If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable.”

South Korea now faces that question: Where is it headed? Will it look for a path only between the United States and China, or will it design the future with India as a new civilizational pillar?

The I Ching says:
“As heaven keeps moving forward with strength, so a gentleman strengthens himself without rest.”
South Korea, facing a vast civilization called India, needs that spirit: persistence over haste, long-term strategy over short-term results.
India’s classic Upanishads say:
“Truth alone triumphs. Falsehood never triumphs.”
That is also the root of ‘Satyameva Jayate,’ now the national motto of the Republic of India. Relations between countries, too, endure only on truth and trust.

To understand India’s economy, one must understand its history. India is not simply an emerging market; it is one of humanity’s oldest civilizational roots. The Indus civilization, around 2500 B.C., already had urban planning and water and sewer systems. India later became a center of philosophy and religion, mathematics and astronomy through the Vedic era, the formation of Hindu thought, the birth of Buddhism, the Maurya dynasty and Emperor Ashoka, and the Gupta dynasty’s golden age.

The concept of zero, the decimal system, yoga, Buddhism, the Upanishads and Vedanta philosophy all originated in India.

India’s history also includes centuries of Islamic dynasties and then British colonial rule, which left railways and administrative systems but also deepened division and poverty. After independence in 1947 through the era of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, India began a vast democratic experiment, becoming a country with the world’s largest electorate and one of its most complex election systems.

For decades after independence, India’s growth was slowed by a socialist-style planned economy and protectionism. That changed after economic reforms in 1991, when market opening, expanded foreign investment and the development of the information technology industry accelerated the transformation into today’s India.

India is again at an inflection point: a continental-scale economy that supports a population of more than 1.4 billion, remains self-sufficient in food and exports agricultural products worth tens of billions of dollars each year. The International Monetary Fund has highlighted growth in the 6% to 7% range. By purchasing power parity, India ranks as the world’s third-largest economy. It is also positioned to benefit from supply-chain restructuring as manufacturing shifts. Seeing India only as a large-population country misses the structural changes moving that population.

But to understand India, one must first understand its extreme diversity. India is not a single, uniform nation; it is closer to a “federated civilization.” Its constitution recognizes more than 22 official languages, including Hindi and English, and in practice hundreds of languages and dialects are used. Cultural sensibilities differ between the Hindi-speaking north and the Dravidian-language south.
Religious life is also complex. Hinduism is the majority faith, but India’s Muslim population is among the largest in the world, alongside Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Christianity. Caste discrimination is legally banned, but remnants still operate in society.
Punjab’s commercial instincts, Gujarat’s entrepreneurial culture, Bengal’s intellectual tradition, Tamil Nadu’s manufacturing base, Karnataka’s IT ecosystem and Maharashtra’s financial centrality each differ. In India, it matters less to say “I know India” than to ask, “Which India do you know?”

Companies that ignored this diversity often failed. A leading example is POSCO’s Odisha steel project. POSCO pursued construction of a large integrated steel mill in Odisha state in 2005, then South Korean companies’ biggest overseas investment. But land acquisition disputes, local opposition, environmental regulations, conflicts of interest between the central and state governments, and political change combined to stall the project for years, ending in what was effectively a failure.

South Korean companies often think, “The contract is over, so the business is over.” In India, community trust lasts longer than a contract. Local society can be stronger than formal rules, and relationships can matter more than speed.

Walmart also faced major barriers from regulation and distribution structures in its early India push. Vodafone suffered for years in a tax dispute. Nokia also struggled amid tax issues and policy shifts.

The common mistake was treating India as a single market. India should be assessed through a SWOT analysis.

Its strengths are substantial. First, it is young: India’s median age is about 28. As South Korea, Japan and China are shaken by aging, India has the advantage of a large working-age population. Second, its digital infrastructure is strong. The ‘India Stack’ has expanded financial access and improved administrative efficiency through digital identity and payment systems, representing a shift in how the state operates. Third, it has a framework of democracy and rule of law. Change can be slow, but institutional safeguards exist.

Its weaknesses are also clear. First, it faces jobless growth: IT and services expand, but manufacturing jobs are not sufficient. Second, education gaps persist; the workforce is large, but there is a shortage of skilled workers ready for industrial sites. Third, infrastructure and administrative inefficiency remain, with differing regulations and tax systems by state exhausting foreign firms. Fourth, caste and regional disparities create invisible barriers that weigh on productivity.

Opportunities are evident. Amid U.S.-China tensions, India is a key beneficiary of the “China plus one” strategy. Moves involving Apple and Foxconn are symbolic. There is broad room for cooperation with South Korea across semiconductors, batteries, automobiles, defense, shipbuilding and energy.

Threats also exist: stronger protectionism, political nationalism, religious conflict, policy shifts by state, and reforms that move more slowly than expected. India’s potential is large, but it can be difficult to predict.

For South Korea, the strategy should not be “enter quickly,” but “stay together for the long term.” First, the government should cultivate Hindi specialists as strategic national assets and systematically supply an India-focused talent pool to the Foreign Ministry, the Industry Ministry, KOTRA, the Korea International Trade Association and major companies. This requires long-term projects at universities and state research institutes, not short training programs.
Second, companies should look beyond New Delhi and financial hub Mumbai and build state-level strategies: Tamil Nadu for manufacturing, Karnataka for IT, Gujarat for industrial infrastructure and Telangana for advanced industries.
Third, South Korea should pursue shared-growth models rather than simple investment. Projects tied to daily life matter, including hospitals, education, vocational training, agricultural technology, smart cities, railways and ports. India is not just a place to sell goods; it is a partner in building capacity.
Fourth, South Korea should set a 30-year plan. If policy shifts with every change of government, trust with India will not take root. A long-term, cross-administration platform such as a Korea-India joint future commission is needed.

The Doctrine of the Mean says:
“If you persist, you become clear; if you become clear, you go far."Also, the Tao Te Ching says:“A great nation is like the lowlands, the meeting place of all under heaven.”
The idea is that a great country does not dominate from above; it flows low and receives all waters. India is such a country: slow but deep, complex but enduring. India is not fast, but it lasts. South Korea is fast, but sometimes forgets too quickly.

POSCO’s setback was not only a business failure; it was a failure of understanding. What is needed is not just capital, but patience; not just contracts, but friendship. India, which Twain called the great-grandmother of tradition, is transforming into a young economic giant. India’s per capita GDP remains low, but the future will be shaped not only by numbers, but by direction.

In 30 years, Asia’s order may be rewritten around India. If South Korea wants to remain not just a trading partner but a true friend, it must prepare now.

India is not a market.
India is the future.
 



* This article has been translated by AI.

Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.